Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @12:56PM
from the it-is-all-about-the-wilson dept.

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "Last month, a report suggested that Austin has the highest salaries for tech workers (after factoring in the cost of living), followed by Atlanta, Denver, Boston, and Silicon Valley. Now, a new report (yes, from Dice, because it gathers this sort of data from tech workers) suggests that more tech people are earning six figures a year than ever. Some 32 percent of full-time tech pros took home more than $100,000 in 2013, according to the findings, up from 30 percent in 2012 and 26 percent in 2011. For contractors, the data is even better: In 2013, a staggering 54 percent of them earned more than $100,000 a year, up from 51 percent the previous year and 50 percent in 2011. How far that money goes depends on where you live, of course, but it does seem like a growing number of the world's tech workers are earning a significant amount of cash."

Not exactly, but certainly not the extremely loose monetary policy we now have. Perhaps just two shifts at the BPE and stop buying our own bonds with printed (or just made up digital equivalent) dollars? That might be nice...

I understand the hope is that we will return to growth by increasing the money supply, but there will be a down side to this eventually. I just hope the cure is less damaging than the disease. IMHO, QE is a short term tactical ploy with negative long term implications, but politics as they are, we are in a play now pay later game plan. It's all about the election coming up and not what really needs to be done, especially if it takes more than 10

Inflation since QE has not been outside historical levels [usinflatio...ulator.com]. QE started around late 2008.

A lot of that "consistency" is due to tweaks in the CPI in 1980 and 1990... Adjusting for those calculation tweaks [shadowstats.com] we see that inflation is actually quite high, nearing 9% on the historical record, not the claimed 2%.

Much of that is due to the capital flight toward safety (at one point, even turning US Treasuries into slightly negative-value investments). So long as people with wealth are willing to park it in US Dollars, you won't see any major shifts in the currency. However, provide a viable alternative and I think you'll begin to see some rapid shifts that won't make anyone holding assets denominated in US Dollars very happy. And that could trigger some truly catastrophic investor and sovereign panic as people and b

Given the trillion dollar or more per year injections of new money into the economy, the fact that there isn't more inflation is a cause of concern. The money injections seem to be happening primarily at the top and only partly trickling down into the wider economy which is showing up as income inequality and growth starting at the very top rather than being spread around which would show up in consumer inflation. I think the real threat in the trickle down way the Federal Reserve and the US government are distributing new money is that it is getting concentrated even more at the top and that is further undermining and diluting democracy and freedom.

Certainly the new money does help to capitalize businesses and that has stabilized jobs, but the real long term sustainability of that "debt" will be premised on using Federal Reserve "profits" to balance the federal debt out over time rather than actually taking money out of the economy to pay it back later.

Bottom line is that with all this new money being concentrated at the top because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and the stimulus, then we are going to need a set of public policies to try and restore the political and economic power of the middle income earners that has been eroding steadily for decades. Which I am arguing has happened as a direct result from the way that new money creation is distributed by the Federal Reserve and US Government.

We need more ways to save income that are tax free combined with lower taxes on both the poor and middle class. And lower taxes or no taxes on job creating businesses. But higher taxes on very high individual incomes.

Deficits and new money creation to support economic reforms to broaden the middle class and strengthen our democracy and freedom are a worthwhile investment in the future.

Well, to argue against myself, I don't necessarily disagree with the claim that QE may end up having negative long-term effects. But I do disagree with this statement: "Inflation has been abnormally high lately and it's largely because of QE."

The amount of physical currency in circulation is of course totally irrelevant. It's a bad metaphor, since it only encourages the gold nuts. The money supply has fuck-all to do with physical currency.

We haven't seem inflation as a result of QE because it hasn't increased the money supply. We added $2 T by buying our own bonds, but at the same time bank reserves increased by about the same, at about the same rate.

The Fed's trying a new trick to hold bank reserves: they're paying interest rather than incre

The amount of physical currency in circulation is of course totally irrelevant.

On that point you are correct, but the physical currency is being expanded. What IS relevant, is the expansion of the total money supply and the artificial lowering of interest rates caused by QE. Not all money is physical these days, much is electronic and only backed by physical currency when it hits the streets in your hands. IMHO Inflation will be the result of QE as it has increased the money supply, both physical and electronic. There is no way to avoid it because we have added more to the currency

No. The Fed has printed up a bunch of money, given it to the banks and is paying them interest to not release it into the wild. This allows them to lend out money at cheaper rates and supposedly helps the economy (in a "what could possibly go wrong?" kind-of way).

Very well put! I'm not will to say the Fed is a bunch of fools with this plan, because it is a new thing and sometimes you need to try new things, and thus far it seems to be working, but man it could go so horribly, horribly wrong.

"You would prefer a fixed money supply?"Not a fixed supply per se, but one that cannot be routinely manipulated to siphon peoples savings into the pockets of the well-connected and already super wealthy would certainly be nice.

The bimetallic standard, for example, did not result in a fixed money supply. New gold and silver are still being mined, after all. But unlike paper money, the expansion was somewhat limited, it takes time, and effort (and money!) to mine precious metals. Supply and demand moderated t

I'd prefer a money supply pegged to population change + 1/100th of 1% by constitutional amendment. Some economists and Federal Reserve supporters will argue that such a thing ties the hands of those "managing the economy". I would argue that limiting the power of those who proclaim to understand how to manage an economy of the size and scale of any modern industrialized nation can only result in improvement. If the stagflation of the 70s and 80s, the boom of the mid to late 90s, the bust at the tail end of

If someone will do the job for $X and not leave for greener pastures then $X is what they're "worth".

Only because businesses that don't pay enough are externalizing the cost of wages. If someone doesn't get paid enough the shortfall is made up by things like state benefits, subsidized healthcare, subsidized after-school activities for their children so they can work longer, food banks, debts that will eventually be written off etc.

Eventually it comes back to bite the business in the arse. People on low pay buy less, they might get ill or die, or the government might put up corporation taxes to pay their be

I'm actually in favor of subsidizing these costs, since it allows for a larger number of unskilled Americans to be employed. If employers had to bear the entire cost of their support many of these individuals would be unemployable. The sad fact is that many peoples' labor isn't worth a wage that would allow them to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living (in the U.S., using U.S. standards for "reasonable").

If someone will do the job for $X and not leave for greener pastures then $X is what they're "worth".

Keep on thinking that and see what happens. There may be a reason the person is not leaving such as there being nowhere else to leave to! But keep on paying shit salaries and see what kind of shit work you get.

Who said anything about shit salaries? If it takes $200k/year to keep someone working for me then that's what I'll pay him or her, but not a penny more. That is, assuming I think his or her output is actually worth $200k/year. You keep on paying people more than their market value and see what happens to your labor costs relative to your competitors.

I don't see how that invalidates what I said. One could argue that a ban on importing workers is actually the more artificial playing field, rigged to prop up the incomes of domestic IT workers. This also raises an interesting question: how would you propose we calculate the "value" of of a worker's labor if the answer isn't "the amount an employer is willing to pay to acquire it"?

Suppose I were to claim that my 40-hours a week is, in fact, worth $10M/year, even though I'm only getting paid $100k/year.

At least blame the right faceless government agency. Inflation money hasn’t been actually printed on paper since perhaps before Jimmy Carter. The Federal Reserve just shifts the bits a couple of spots towards MSB on various too big to fail entities’ bank account records. Same effect, just less of that messy ink to deal with...

I will take your point... But The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is part of the Treasury Department is it not? And a Federal Reserve bank needs to be ready to cough up the physical cash should an account holder demand to make a withdraw.

Sure, agreed. But, I think the point is that 6-figures (as in $100K+/-) used to be associated with living the good life. Now it will buy you a nice modest home in a safe area with reasonably good schools while allowing you to afford health care and vacations and 401K contributions.

Similarly, 7-figures (as in $1M+/-) used to be associated with being super rich. Now it means you're very well off and well positioned in life, but you still have to work, and you still have to budget if you expect to keep growing that money for retirement.

Depends where you live, you taxation level, your debts, and many other factors. Personally, I would like to see China and India IT workers get 100K salaries as well. It would likely mean less off-shoring.

Yes, $100k used to mean you had made it... not just to the middle class, but to the upper middle class and maybe with some additional savings you could save up enough to start your own business. Now, especially in many of the more expensive metropolitan areas, $100k simply means you are in the middle of the middle class. $150k or even $200k is closer to the old $100k threshold in terms of a threshold to the upper middle class. And a lot depends on how much wealth you have already and which area you live

As said, it depends on the location. Making 100K in Silicon Valley will not get you a nice house and good schools unless you commute an hour to work and another hour home.

6 figures has always been misleading, but today I fear it's more misleading. Those that live in middle class are in 6 figures even if barely. The low end of 6 figures is generally a 2 family income now, which means that a parent could be a stay at home parent. You are not out buying houses and boats on that (at least not without accumulating lots of debt) and not really living the "good life". You are going to be "middle class" with the trimmings of 'middle class'.

That same 6 figure bracket holds the guys making 990K. The difference a middle class 2 person family income and being just shy of a millionaire is huge!

Oddly, I seem to exemplify this. I was on track up until the financial crisis then chaos ensued. But if we look at where I was in 2004 making ~$80k, then went higher, then back down at the crisis, and comparing my standard of living to now, it's completely the same. I have the same small house, paid-off car (but not the same paid off car) and the same or worse lifestyle. The only real difference is the economy is shakier and anyone can lose their job at any time. I know, it happened to me twice last year, despite stellar reviews. I spend way less money at the bar and I hardly eat out. The only positive is I am 10 years more into a mortgage. But I did get a dog.

Treading water, I'm doing it right.

This is all despite a very energetic attitude, high work ethic, and high work drive. I'm trying to get ahead. Even my dog has a higher work ethic than most people. But I'm still delightfully average. And even less secure than ever.

If you're single and have had a professional salary for 10 years, you should be halfway to retirement by now. Your wealth should be at the point where, while's there no way you could get by on it long term, there's simply no short-term financial stress in life.

If it's in a 401K, it's hard to get at. Plus, that money is earmarked for retirement, so having to dip into that or take out a home equity loan is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. I have almost all my equity in my house and my 401K. That's already earmarked and if I were to lose my job for several months, I would have to dip into it.

I would be covered, but that's still falling backwards, and stressful.

Save more than what your 401K can hold. Seriously. If you're getting a professional salary, you should be saving at least 1/3rd of it. Half if you're single. Investing is a needed skill, and it takes years to develop, and you want to make your mistakes when you're starting and the stakes are low, not scramble after retirement to figure it out.

I think the operative word is *should.* I jumped into consulting when I was 24. I'm now 34 and SHOULD be halfway to retirement. Unfortunately they handed lots of cash to 24 year old me. 34 year old me would like to introduce that guy to financial discipline.

America has a massive cultural failing in teaching people about money. I didn't figure it out till I was 29, and apparently I'm ahead of the game. That's abominable. If I had learned all this stuff in school, I would have believed it by 25 and probably be retired now! But it's not just the schools - we need to make a real effort to teach our kids, friends, and co-workers.

That's most likely due to "Tech" being considered more and more important in corporations and therefor leading clueless Directors and VPs to change their titles to include some tech sounding title to further their carers.

There obviously is a demand/supply imbalance here, if salaries are heading north this quickly. Dramatically increasing the number of H1B visas would help to rein in these runaway salaries and would be great for businesses that have to compete on a world stage.

What exactly do you think paying non-citizens less to do the same work Americans could do accomplishes in terms of net positive?

I don’t dispute your assertion that allowing more H1B’s would drive down tech salaries, but as a tech worker NOT among the six-digit salary range myself, I can’t conceive of a possible way that’s a good thing.

That said, having interviewed a number of H1B candidates, I’m of the impression that adding more marginally skilled labor to the labor pool doesn

As someone who has done a lot of contracting but has also done long stretches as a full-time employee, I would take less pay for a full-time position any day. As a contractor, insurance generally costs more and covers less. You also miss out on a lot of corporate perks. Further, contracts are usually defined as 3-months, 6-months, one-year with an unknown possibility of being hired on at the end of your contract. So as soon as you get cozy, poof! Then, if the contract does not specify a time limit, you never know when the ax will fall. There are misc. other downsides as well. So yes, I always made a lot more money as a contractor, but being a real employee is always better.

I have a different best of both... I'm a contractor who is a W2 employee of the consulting company I'm currently contracted through. I'm getting billed out at something like 2-2.5 of what I get paid but I'm still getting paid more like a contractor. Since I am W2 they are also covering my employment taxes just no bennies otherwise (PTO/Health/401K/etc)

When this contract is done there's no guarantee of anything beyond (from me or from them) but it's in their best interest to keep me feeding them money so I

Which means the people who engage my services likely end up paying about 3x my salary to have me as a consultant.

So if assuming your normal yearly rate is a respectable $100k, and you're on a consulting gig where your annual is effectively 3x that, or $300k, your hourly rate comes out to roughly $144/hr.

For a short-term engagement, that's not bad at all, but it's awfully high for a 4-year stint. I'd love to learn more about how you came into the position, what it entails, etc. Would you be willing to share here, or at least privately?

For a short-term engagement, that's not bad at all, but it's awfully high for a 4-year stint. I'd love to learn more about how you came into the position, what it entails, etc. Would you be willing to share here, or at least privately?

I can tell you in broad generalities... there are some cities, especially ones with a large amount of companies who do oil and gas, where all of the companies mostly use consultants as the majority of their workforce. So almost all of the IT stuff is contracted out and overs

If you're getting cozy at you're job, you're not progressing in skills, pay, or responsibility. Stay a "permanent" employee if you want to get "cozy". Those who want to quickly advance should contract. I went from phone jockey to database application developer in 8 years, during which time, most "permanent" employees I knew were still doing the same job the entire time.

Y'all can have Austin. It's a beautiful place with lots of fun things to do, but not my kind of town. Parts of Austin are really great, but there are better places in Texas for me. If you are young looking to have lots of fun, Austin would be great. It's a little weird at times (too weird for me) but some folks like it.

So, if you can stand the weird (or even like it) give Austin a try. Don't let the fact that it's part of Texas fool you, if you like Cali, you will fit in well. Just please let me visit e

If you are young looking to have lots of fun, Austin would be great. It's a little weird at times (too weird for me) but some folks like it.

LOL... so, it's not unlike the rest of the world, but entirely unlike Texas?

Well, I've lived in Texas nearly 20 years in three different places, Austin was one of them. And to answer your question, yes, Austin is vastly different than just about any other place I've been in Texas. In fact, it reminds me more of the west coast (where I've lived too) than Texas. I'd warn you, that Austin has it's own special kind of weirdness, mostly because of the University that sits right next to the capital building, but some folks like it.

LOL... all these fancy city slickers with their fancy weird haircuts and their fancy weird rock and roll music driving their fancy weird imported cars. People had wires sticking out of their ears for some reason.

Why I saw guys not wearing plaid shirts, belt buckles or hats, and sipping on some kinda weird foamy coffee things... and they was holdin' hands! Bubba was practically beside himself when he saw the girl with the blue hair and the s

Austin and the surrounding area has been culturally distinct from the rest of Texas since civil war times. It's by no means a new thing. It's not just people that have recently fled high prices in Silicon Valley.

I'm no expert on the teaching profession, but my understanding is that the salaries are highly variable by state, and that some states/districts are strong recruiters, going out-of-state to recruit good teachers. Obviously, this doesn't work out for someone who refuses to leave their hometown, but for someone who doesn't mind relocating, it can be quite lucrative. Also, job stability is something that teaching is usually well-known for, so California is probably an anomaly that way. Maybe she should look

If you look at the percentages, contractors are much higher than FTEs. They also have much higher costs and less stable working conditions, which the higher rate compensates for. Given the...uneven...quality of contractors I've seen who are nevertheless well compensated, I've often considered jumping into that lifestyle. After all, if idiot hustlers can bill $150+ an hour on a project and tank it, imagine what someone who knows what they're doing can do! Having a family really does make you stop and think about that though.

Advantages to contracting:- Never the same job twice- Absolutely every cent you spend on anything is a deductible business expense, so you pay much less in taxes- Flexibility

Disadvantages:- Constantly moving, never getting a chance to see something all the way through- You're a one man/one woman sales force- Future work never guaranteed

Constantly moving, never getting a chance to see something all the way through
- You're a one man/one woman sales force
- Future work never guaranteed

- Moving is good. Staying the same place, career-wise, is generally considered to be bad.
- A contract IT person doesn't do sales and more than a "permanent" IT employee does sales. I think you're confused between contracting and consulting.
- Your future work is never guaranteed as a "permanent" employee, either. Contractors will generally have much be

- Moving is good. Staying the same place, career-wise, is generally considered to be bad.

That depends on who you talk to. Here in the Northeast, it seems to be a huge negative on your resume if you haven't stayed in your previous jobs for 5+ years.

Also, the quality of work seems to suck in contracting; you mainly just work at crappy defense contractors or large companies like Qualcomm doing BS busywork. The really interesting jobs all seem to be permanent-only. Again, this may be a regional thing.

My father paid cash for a fully tricked out Mustang (approx 1 month salary) and got a new 3000+sqft home on a large lot (125x175) for a mortgage equal to 12 months of earnings.

Your dad was doing pretty well for the time -- close to $40K, assuming something like $3200 for the car. (Not sure how "fully tricked out" you mean.) By this inflation calculator [bls.gov], that equates to about $240K today.

Today, one month of an equivalent salary will get you a reasonably nice new car, and one year of an equivalent salary will get you a nice house, unless you live in Silicon Valley, DC, Boston, or another hyperdeveloped area. I'd say that the inflation calculator reflects what's going on with car pr

$100k, the minimum needed for one to be in the "six figures" bucket, is more than ~80% of U.S. households earn, many of which have two incomes. A household with two developers both earning $100k/year would be in the top 4% of all households [wikipedia.org].

As for the cost-of-living adjustment for the Bay area, relative to Austin, I used a number of online calculators and $100k in Austin seems to be the equivalent of about $162k in San Jose.

Commuting to NYC (Manhattan) is cheap. They have trains running to NJ, CT, and NY (north of the city); you can get monthly passes and it's pretty cheap, certainly much cheaper than gas + car maintenance + insurance. Of course, the trick is living near a train station, or having someone who can drive you to one. The stations have parking lots/garages, but these have reserved spaces and are quite pricey, so if you don't live close enough to walk/bike (and biking in this area isn't really safe, plus the wea

I'd bet if you could look into those numbers, a lot of those higher earners are living in places where the Cost of Living is ridiculous. The prime example is Silicon Valley, which is gaining thousands of tech jobs a year, but there is simply no housing to be had for reasonable prices anywhere within an hour's commute. (And if you try living that hour away, you'll find locals picketing your horrible commute).

It would be interesting to see numbers "normalized" for cost of living differences.

I think the truth is that most people don't actually foresee buying a house any more. I know many professionals in the Valley who still live with their parents because it's cheaper than dumping half their paycheck on an apartment. Most people also end up with several room mates. 100k sounds like a lot until you take out taxes and 2k a month for rent. Plus, if you want to be social, you can't eat out for less than $25 a meal. And those are the cheap places. Other required items are also much more expen

I'm based in Oklahoma, one of the least expensive places to live in the country, and I've been over $100K for many years. Location has something to do with it but your capabilities, experience, and reputation have a lot more to do with it.

I never really got enthusiastic about coding. The first language I learned was BASIC. That was an interesting introduction into IF,ELSE logic. After that I taught myself x86 ASM. That was useful because I could understand virii, crack copy protection and write trainers for games. I work with relational databases a lot so I can write decent TSQL. I have some experience with.Net and recently I have been working with PowerShell. PS is not really a language, but understanding functions and variables hel